18 messages in com.mysql.lists.plusplusRe: Problems with timestamp| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Королев Илья | 16 Oct 2006 05:57 | |
| Warren Young | 16 Oct 2006 17:36 | |
| Королев Илья | 17 Oct 2006 00:34 | |
| Warren Young | 17 Oct 2006 01:46 | |
| Королев Илья | 17 Oct 2006 02:05 | |
| Warren Young | 17 Oct 2006 03:12 | |
| Королев Илья | 17 Oct 2006 03:26 | |
| Warren Young | 17 Oct 2006 05:03 | |
| Королев Илья | 17 Oct 2006 06:24 | |
| Warren Young | 18 Oct 2006 05:20 | |
| Королев Илья | 18 Oct 2006 06:40 | |
| Warren Young | 18 Oct 2006 11:34 | |
| Королев Илья | 24 Oct 2006 01:20 | |
| Warren Young | 24 Oct 2006 14:39 | |
| Королев Илья | 24 Oct 2006 22:39 | |
| Warren Young | 25 Oct 2006 05:13 | |
| Королев Илья | 20 Nov 2006 03:10 | |
| Warren Young | 20 Nov 2006 11:32 |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with timestamp![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Королев Илья (bre...@begun.ru) |
| Date: | 10/17/2006 12:34:52 AM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.plusplus |
in <mysql++/sql_types.h> there are such lines ... typedef Time sql_timestamp; ...
I guess it _really_ incorrect, it should be at least ... typedef DateTime sql_timestamp; ...
That is just historical. We can't change it without a risk of breaking existing code. But, I have placed your proposed fix on the v3.0 section of the Wishlist. That would be the earliest point we could contemplate changing it.
hm... Can you give me a example of using sql_timestamp? IMHO it can't be used as a real timestamp, so it really hard to me to imagine such example.
Again about SSQLS and static members. I've made a version of custom.pl - which lives without static members, it creates custom_no_static.h and custom_no_static-macros.h files. I guess it may be useful.
You shouldn't need that any more with the most recent two versions of MySQL++. Do they not solve the problem for you?
Is it in SVN? I'll try it
why DateTime isn't a descendant of Date & Time?
Let's imagine that it is. In such case I can easily truncate info about Time and send just a Date. May be it isn't a really common case, but it would be handily to me :)
PS Don't pay attention to my straightforward phrases - it just becouse of ugly English :)




